A/HRC/7/3/Add.2 page 144 blindfolding detainees in police custody, among other inhuman interventions, is forbidden and that the NGO’s allegations are unfounded. 719. Recommendation (k) stated: Given the manifestly pervasive practice of torture, at least up to 1996, there should be a review by an independent body of undisputed integrity of all cases in which the primary evidence against convicted persons is a confession allegedly made under torture. All police officials, including the most senior, found to have been involved in the practice, either directly or by acquiescence, should be forthwith removed from police service and prosecuted; the same should apply to prosecutors and judges implicated in colluding in or ignoring evidence of the practice; the victims should receive substantial compensation. 720. According to non-governmental sources, no such review body has yet been established and no such sanctions applied. 721. The Government informed that the new Criminal Procedure Code which entered into force on 1 June 2005, contains many safeguards for suspects and accused persons against unlawful practices and for the effective exercise of defence rights. In this framework, the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the right to be assisted by a defence counsel and ensures that any statement should be made of free will, and that statements extracted through prohibited methods such as torture or ill-treatment shall not be taken as a basis for any judgement. Article 148(4) states, “The statement taken by law enforcement officials in the absence of defence counsel can not be a basis for a judgement unless verified by the suspect or the accused before the judge or the court.” 722. Many of these safeguards existed before the introduction of the new Criminal Procedure Code. For instance, article 135 of the former Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412 provided the right to access to a defence counsel, assignment of a defence counsel by the State free of charge, and presence of a defence counsel at all stages of statementtaking and interrogation. Article 135(a) ensured that any statement should be made of free will, prohibited unlawful methods for taking statement such as torture, ill-treatment and other methods preventing free will, and envisaged that statements taken through prohibited methods cannot be regarded as evidence even with the consent of the suspect. 723. In view of the above, defence rights were provided fully to suspects and accused persons before 1 June 2005 and no obstacle existed for them to exercise their right to be assisted by a defence counsel at all stages of investigation or prosecution. If a suspect or an accused person objected to the content of any statement taken in the absence of his/her defence counsel, such a statement alone was not considered sufficient for a conviction. Courts have discretionary power to assess the value of each and every evidence submitted to the court and to consider all the evidence together before rendering a judgement. In this respect, there has not been a protection gap in terms of safeguards against torture or other degrading treatment or of guarantees to ensure that any statement should be of free will before the entry into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code. Evidence obtained through torture has always been regarded as unlawful evidence, which entailed criminal liability.